Ellen Goodman Begs Kerry Not To Run Again

[cali]

I have to admit she sums it up for me pretty damned succinctly. Here's a snippet of the column:

"I have long believed that any columnist who writes about a presidential election more than two years before Election Day should have her fingers peeled from her keyboard and be taken off to a rehab clinic for political junkies. The only reason I risk that fate now is to soothe an escalating series of anxiety attacks that range from "Uh-oh" to "Oh, no" to a shrieking "YIPES!"

The signs that John Kerry is going to run for president in 2008 are rising faster than the pollen count. There was the requisite New York Times op-ed - How many days late? How many dollars short? - on getting out of Iraq. There was the speech supporting war dissenters at Boston's Faneuil Hall to an audience of groupies yelling "Run" and "2008." There was Ted Kennedy's remark, "If he runs, I'm supporting him."

And then there was his op-ed in the New Hampshire Sunday News defending New Hampshire's place as first-in-the-nation primary. A true profile in courage.

All of this leads me to blurt out: "Stop Him Before He Kills (the Democrats' Chances) Again."

<snip>

John, please. Don't even think about it.

<snip>

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060427/REPOSITORY/604270346/1028/OPINION02

[wakeme2008]

1. I agree

He folded so fast in Ohio...

Gore I would give my support to, he is a fighter...

[katmondoo]

2. What about Al Gore

[mattclearing]

19. Same problem.

We were robbed, but the conventional wisdom is that America passed on Gore and Kerry, even if most DU'ers know differently.

[American liberal]

121. I don't agree. Al Gore is a different animal. He's been on message

for more than 20 years. I heard his MLK Day speech and was invigorated in a way I had never experienced before. My lukewarm 2000 support for Mr. Gore has been transformed into wildly enthusiastic support for his candidacy in 2008. I hope beyond hope that he will heed the call and run.

On the other hand, I believe Kerry would be much more effective by remaining in the Senate. I think he would hurt our chances of winning the White House in '08, whereas Gore would be a force to be reckoned with. Therefore, I respectfully ask that you not lump Mr. Gore and Sen. Kerry in the same categories.

Thx!

[roguevalley]

136. Al expresses sincere horror on the environment that too many of

us feel and gives confidence that he would do something about it. Kerry, nah. Not so much.

[NNadir]

169. I agree with you. He's like the other TN President robbed on an election

That would be Andrew Jackson, who like Al, was robbed in a close election.

He came back, and is now generally thought of as being a successful President.

I think Mr. Gore would be outstanding. He's the best shot this country has, not that we have much of a shot after this disaster.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

44. I'm beginning to warm up on Al Gore

as long as he ignores Shrum or whoever his handlers in 2000 are, I may be rooting for him.

editing for spelling.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

164. Gorebal Warming?

?

[panader0]

3. Who does Goodman support?

[cascadiance]

78. It seems to me that Russ Feingold is the one that fits here!

He's the one that has the courage to speak truth to power and constantly challenge the president and speak for us people instead of staying wishy washy on the sidelines.

He's also kept the special interest financiers/consultants at bay in his quest for helping right the problems of campaign financing. He's the kind of leader I want later. Whether he can get elected or not is the fundamental question. If the Democrats unite behind him and help build his message so that it becomes the basis of what the mission the Democratic Party wants to take America on that appeals to left and center, that's what I think will win!

[Clark2008]

122. I'd be for a Clark/Feingold ticket

I'm married to a Jewish man and even he agrees with me that Feingold would have difficulty in swinging any purplish-red states because of his last name and the fact he's twice divorced.

Even though I agree completely with what you said about his courage, there are simply some voters (and I'm speaking of the mushy middle) who won't vote for him ONLY for the above reasons.

We need to swing at least TWO red states.

[Telly Savalas]

135. If we can't win without the anti-Semite vote, then we're pretty fucked.

[Clark2008]

158. What about the anti-divorce people.

In red states, people who still believe their morality doesn't stink are getting fed up with Republicans because of the deficit and the war; however, they still won't vote for someone on the Dem side they see as "immoral."

I'm sorry, but the divorces, in my opinion, hurt Russ worse than his last name, particularly in the purple states.

I know that sucks and I'm not defending it - I'm just pointing out how far backwards the Reich-wing media has taken us.

[napi21]

165. I'd be inclined to agree with you EXCEPT for Reagan!

Being totally against divorced candidates used to be the absolute rule many years ago, but then they all fell in love with Ronnie Reagan, and still are if you listen to them.

[Mass]

4. She should have listened to her own advice. Too early to talk about 08.

Or does she want a place at the pundit table.

[TayTay]

5. I disagree.

She is wrong. Generally I like her stuff.

But she is just plain wrong. See James Boyce and his reasons for why Kerry should run in the Huffington Post yesterday.

Goodman is drinking the kool-aid. If Kerry has the money, the inclination, the support of his family and the money, he should go for it. He is a good Dem.

Thanks for the reminder Ellen. I think I'll send him another $20.08 check.

[Tigress DEM]

149. How about Kerry / Conyers --- He won 2004, stomp out election fraud

and he can put his rear in the seat that I wish to God he would have gotten back then.

He wouldn't have been perfect, but no one will be. He has the intelligence to gather the best around him and bring out their best if people will quit ripping him open every week or so.

AND he did his time in the war, so he's more likely not to waste the lives of our soldiers on make the top 1% rich beyond their wildest dreams wars.

But this time he has to put it in writing that he will go to the mat and keep fighting until every vote is counted.

[wryter2000]

6. I agree with her

"I have long believed that any columnist who writes about a presidential election more than two years before Election Day should have her fingers peeled from her keyboard and be taken off to a rehab clinic for political junkies

For pity's sake, let's worry about 2006. It seems to me that if we have extensive investigations into all the Repugnican crimes, 2008 could take care of itself.

[Tigress DEM]

150. 2006 IS the main concern - as is having those vote ACCURATELY Counted.

If Diebold et all still flip the votes, we get another SELECTION instead of an ELECTION.

Ken Blackwell is still tampering with Ohio. How is that lawsuit going?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. Did he ever explain why he folded so quickly?

I've often wondered. I just assumed it was because he still didn't believe how corrupt they were.

[Mass]

15. He waited for the longest time except Gore.

And he did not have something to fight on. Sorry to disappoint you, but he did not have any leg to stand (even people like Conyers and Boxer recognize that).

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. Some of the lawyers that went into Ohio on pro bono service came

back feeling there was a problem. It wasn't going to be pretty to uncover, but Kerry at least had the volunteers ready to go in just to start an investigation. Why didn't he at least let them look with his blessing?

[frankenforpres]

42. kerry was being pragmatic

he still has his sight set on being president, i think he thought (of course i can't know) a lawsuit would have made him look petty, especially since he had lost the popular vote


he was looking to 2008 in my opinion, not a bad political move.

[The Backlash Cometh]

56. He still has my support. I know it would have taken heroic measures

to defeat what was happening to us in the last five years, but it's going to take a heroic measure even now. He better be full of piss and vinegar.

[karynnj]

71. That makes no sense

If 2004 was provable before the deadline, that would have been a far better chance than to think that he could win in 2008. From what's been said, they did look over everything in November and would have challanged if it were possible (even after the concession. But the proof wasn't there.

[frankenforpres]

116. you are speaking about looking privately

i am talking about making a media deal out of it

[Tigress DEM]

177. The proof WAS and still is UNDER Ken Blackwell's arse.

The lawsuit Blackwell initiated for sanctions against the Ohio Four - the lawyers who took him on for the people came AFTER the deadline had passed, but it produced 900 pages of evidence of vote fraud committed by Blackwell through his office while he had a major conflict of interest going on. As Secretary of State he should not have been appointed as the Chair or Co-Chair responsible for getting Bush elected in Ohio.

With such a conflict existing, any hint of irregularity should have brought down a full scale investigation. "What do you mean the fox is counting the chickens and telling you that you remember 300, but it's always been 250?"

He was summoned to trial, but refused to go. Said he was being politically persecuted. I wish the judge had thrown the book at him and threw him in jail for contempt of court. You and I would get that if we blew off a parking ticket, but this man steals an election, covers it up and tells the judge to go to hell and gets the nomination to run for Gov.

Hmm... wonder how the latest lawsuit is going? SOS Ken Blackwell had IN HIS OFFICE all the memory sticks for the vote machines going to be used in his election as Governor. NOW I would call that damm shady and a CoNflict of interest myself - or just a plain CON Job.

[Tigress DEM]

151. Why would you say he had lost the popular vote?

The amount of election fraud present in Ohio showed that he did not lose the popular vote according to thousands that cast their vote but didn't get counted. Did you ever read the Conyers report? Did you hear that they took 900+ pages of depositions over several days from people who experienced disenfranchisement and machine malfunctions?

True, the proof is still not all there because Blackwell is sitting on it, but Kerry won the popular vote. No real doubt about that. Just like WMD, we will eventually have proof.

[frankenforpres]

154. nationally

he lost the pop vote nationally.

[Tigress DEM]

175. With rampant cheating involved, I don't think that conclusive ...

of a statement can really be made. Machines were flipping names, and were recalibrated afterward. Actual vote machine tapes with election judge signatures on them were found thrown away in Florida. How can we really know if the popular vote count was accurate?

There were irregularitities and manipulations of New Mexico and Oregon voter registration, so people didn't get to vote due to no fault of their own and weren't therefore included in the count that was done. Absentee voting was tampered with as well.

People were called and told to go to the wrong polling places. So much was so slimy in the 2004 election process and without a transperrant voting system in place I don't have enough faith in the vote count that was done to trust its results. For every bag of DEM voter registrations that were known to be thrown away, how many weren't caught?

Did Kerry really lose the popular vote? I don't know. Still with the amount of potential error caused by the cheating it's like Katrina was predicted to hit NO LA and smacked Cabo San Lucas instead. Possible, but very improbable in the alloted time when things went belly up.

[MH1]

21. Conyers, Boxer - who cares what they think?

:sarcasm:

[acmavm]

17. Not that I've ever heard.

[MH1]

36. Maybe because he didn't "fold"

Read this from someone who was there.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/4/23/115230/700/26#c26

Remember that concession isn't legally binding. If something major and credible (that would hold up in court!) had been found in the days after the election, things could have gone differently. But there are no legal provisions that would have delivered the election to Kerry, bsed on what was actually found. And his lawyers are still involved in at least one lawsuit that is directed at stopping these problems in the future (LWV suit in Ohio).

You might also ask why so few Senators have cosponsored Barack Obama's election integrity legislation, that Kerry introduced with him.

[acmavm]

45. He went away so quietly and meekly it sucked. Didn't make

a sound. Didn't say a word. Just went back to the job he already had. And never looked back meanwhile we, the American voters, the real Democratic party, watched as the repubs disenfranchised us all. Because they blatantly stole that election, and they didn't give a damn who knew it. They still friggin' don't.

That's why Kerry doesn't deserve another chance. His silent acquiescence said it all.

[MH1]

64. He did what he believed to be the right thing for the country based on the

facts at hand.

You disagree. But that is no reason to throw around insults.

I hardly think it is acquiescence when he spent a great deal of money on lawyers and efforts to get to the truth in Ohio. The post I linked clearly states that he had people there all along - that didn't come for free - neither does the ongoing litigation. BTW, that poster is a very long time dailykos poster, not someone who normally shills for Kerry. I was surprised to read this.

Perhaps instead of beating Kerry up, you could put some effort into getting cosponsors and attention for this Senate bill, sponsored by Obama and cosponsored by Kerry (and a grand total of 3 others):

S.1975 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 11/8/2005) Cosponsors (4) Committees: Senate Rules and Administration Latest Major Action: 11/8/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

[acmavm]

87. Oh for crying out loud, I'm not throwing around insults. It is time,

no, way past time, to admit that what he did in light of all the instances of verifiable voter intimidation and known machine failures that he (at the very least) should have been heard and seen screaming from the rooftops that we, the American people, were cheated in one of the most important ways possible. By defrauding us, by stealing an election, and by denying us our right to chose the leader of our country.

And what I do with my time is of no consequence. It is what the people we trust to lead our party, the people we vote for to lead our country, do with their time that you should worry about.

[ProSense]

99. Maybe Goodman should have written an article about election fraud! n/t

[MH1]

32. Read this - from someone who was there

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/4/23/115230/700/26#c26

[The Backlash Cometh]

60. Thanks, nice read.

[MH1]

31. Oh bullshit.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/4/23/115230/700/26#c26

[acmavm]

37. Back at ya. He did NOTHING to earn a second bite at the

apple.

[MH1]

39. Heh. What he "earned" will be determined by primary voters.

And a lot of us like him.

[acmavm]

43. EXACTLY!

[blm]

8. So, Ellen believes the media and voting machines are honest components

of our elections and the only failed factor was Kerry?

Kerry WON His matchups with Bush.

DNC was outorganized by the RNC.

Left media pundits and objective reporters had their ASSES HANDED TO THEM on a daily basis by the RW message machine who controlled nearly every news program. And that INCLUDES Ellen Goodman and every other columnist who stayed away from the daily battles that David Brooks and others took on for the GOP.

And STILL, Kerry won. Bush had to rig machines all over the country. Ellen doesn't help when she blames Kerry and EXEMPTS the poor DAILY PERFORMANCE of an INEFFECTIVE MEDIA. And ignores the security of the voting machines.

[SoCalDem]

96. The "problem" we have is THIS.

The media & the voting machines are HERE (probably to stay too :cry:..), so until we actually start getting to occupy the seats of power we "win, but allow others to occupy", it's all a bunch of yap-yap. Our side can file lawsuit after lawsuit, but since the right wing echo-machine hath proclaimed that lawsuits are junk-lawsuits, by the time they work their way through the courts, the term in question has practically lapsed and is up for re-election...and most people have "moved on".. Pyhrric victories are not what we need these days.

We need to realize that our candidates must be bold AND clean AND smart. In addition to BEING those things, they must also be a junkyard dog, ready to take on anyone and anything.

Unfortunately gentlemanly manners and intellect are not a valuable commodity these days, and is portrayed as timidity,reticence or weakness.

The reason why so many people supported *² after the WTC horror was that he APPEARED to be bold. We all knew he was playacting, but his poll numbers showed that even people who had hated him, suddenly fell in line because they thought he was a bold and decisive leader.

[blm]

102. He didn't LOOK bold - media SAID he looked bold REPEATEDLY day after day

and months turned into years, It wasn't until a category 5 hurricane blew back at them that any of the media blankets protecting Bush were lifted.

You think idf he LOOKED or acted bold after 9-11 that the media would have HAD to keep saying it and reinforcing it to their audiences on a daily basis?

[SoCalDem]

107. Like I said, the media made the myth, and unfortunately

the lemmings lined up and followed.

We have to figure out a way to get in and then actively work to change it from within. That's how it works.. Once out, it's hard to get back in. Ask the repubes..

It took them 30 years of worming their way into every organization they could, and working their way in through grassroots politics..into little elected offices and up the ladder.. They did not get their current status by being anything BUT bold.. The "couldn't get their message out"..so they found rich people to BUY up all the radio stations..same for newspapers and TV..

democrats in office either watched it happen or helped it happen.

Repubes are NOT going to go back willingly..they are cornered animals now and they will fight like a tasmanian devil..

People have the attention spans of gnats these days, and it's an uphill battle ..:(..makes me want to :cry:

[blm]

109. Now that most people don't TRUST Bush, it's the perfect time to expose

both the media and the voting machines. I plan on telling Dean this when I see him this weekend.

[SoCalDem]

110. Thank you.Thank you.Thank you

And would you please tell him that the voting machines are our biggest obstacle? THAT needs some airtime in a BIG way..

[rucky]

9. Eh, I have faith in the primaries.

even Hillary can run for all I care.

[cali]

12. I gotta admit

that that's the most reasonable perspective.

[mnhtnbb]

10. I agree with Ellen.

We need a truthteller--not a politician. I happen to believe Mark Crispin Miller's book, Fooled Again, and his story that Kerry privately agreed, then publicly denied, that the 2004 election was stolen.

Boy, do the Dems ever need a LEADER!!!

[Minnesota Libra]

11. After all we've been through since 2000 you'd thunk these people would....

....be jumping at the chance of having a Democratic candidate, :dem:any democratic candidate.:dem: At least this part showed some common sense, "....should have her fingers peeled from her keyboard and be taken off to a rehab clinic for political junkies.":argh:

[fasttense]

13. I'll never forgive him for backing down on the recount in Ohio

We need someone who will stand up to pressure and wont give in when idiot con artists and thieves try to steal the election. They did it before, they will do it again. I'm not sure where other candidates stand when the repuke thieves steal it, but I do know where Kerry stands - he stands aside.

[MH1]

33. If it wasn't on tv, it didn't happen, right?

Read this from someone who was there

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/4/23/115230/700/26#c26

[ginnyinWI]

63. one point that Dkos post makes that we shouldn't miss:

The Dems are working hard at systematically exposing the Bushies bad policies--and are actually doing a lot of the work that the media should be doing--investigative and reporting duties--that they don't do because they are either lazy or complicit or trying to give a dumbed down electorate what they think it wants as news. We are losing our true journalists and they are being replaced by hacks.

[Burning Water]

18. She's got it right.

Kerry and Gore have had their shots. Now it's Wes Clark's time. And he will suceed!

[yellerpup]

34. Clark can win.

He has everything he needs to win, especially in what will become the former Red states.

[mike_c]

48. yeah, Clark's the guy to appeal to republicans....

:rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

140. no....Clark's the guy to appeal to Americans.....

Don't underestimate him. He did quite a bit coming in late, not contesting Iowa, and slapping back the GOP and Dem smears, the MM AWOL Debate attack questions, and the media ignores (no publicity following Iowa).

To be laughing at one who led and won our last war just 7 years ago without any U.S. casualties under diplomatic negotiating pressures that would have confounded Rumsfeld, Colin and Rice is dumb. really, really dumb.

[fedupinBushcountry]

115. So easy to say

then to do. Please tell me and I like Clark and always have. But tell me why in this military area in which I live in this red state he only could get 9% in one of the early primaries?

It's easy to speculate but in reality it is hard to do.

[FrenchieCat]

141. What state was that?

If I know, then I'll be able provide you with an answer.

[elehhhhna]

20. I'm with her. Kerry SUCKS at campaigning. SUCKS. BIGTIME.

[blm]

41. Kerry didn't decisively win his personal matchups with Bush?

Or was it the DNC that didn't win its matchups with the RNC.

Or the left media, including Goodman, who couldn't effectively counter the RW message machine that handed them their asses and controlled the perception in the media on a daily basis?

And STILL Bush was forced to rig machines and suppress votes to stay in power.

[elehhhhna]

117. a MONKEY could out debate GW and Kerry is a bore....

he was OUR bore, and I suported himm, but not again. Too swivelly for me, frankly.

I'm with Feingold.

[blm]

123. Well, they'll have their chance to debate and we'll see how that turns out

but it wasn't completely the point - The DNC and the left punditry class who failed MISERABLY was my point.

And it wasn't just Kerry's decisive triumph in the debates that he outperformed Bush - it was also in the policy plans he developed for his campaign that were miles ahead in details and in solutions for the real issues facing everyday Americans. So much so that the media had to ignore the details of Kerry's plans.

[KAT119]

22. Thank you, Ellen. Kerry truly cannot articulate-IS a flipflopper -gave up

when swift boated. Skull & Cross Bones alums are unfathomable when Dems- as is Kerry. He struck many as only a stalking horse-stand in- token "opponant" for * and Never went for *'s obvious lies and treason (etc.etc.etc.) to US Constitution, the people, the innocent Iraqi families- and the destruction of our fragile planet!!

[paulk]

58. a veritable litiny of right wing talking points

:toast:

-Ken

[stevietheman]

92. Yep, and I'm afraid _those_ talking points are true.

Kerry stands up, then backs down, stands up, then backs down...

No way is Kerry getting this nom again. No effing way.

[paulk]

103. it's tough enough for a Democrat to win these days

what with the smears and lies the right wing heaps on them...

it's even tougher when the left piles on

[MH1]

159. Oh bullshit.

Your statement just isn't true. You have bought the right wing media spin.

Remember this is a media that smeared a war hero and a veteran who eloquently and responsibly protested a horribly immoral war - while making a paper hero of a deserter who even used Daddy's connections to escape any real risk, and deserted still - and while the so-called "liberal" and "Democratic" pundits either nodded their heads or sat on their hands at 90% of what the right wing shills said.

Anyone who runs in 2008 will face the exact same media and will have the same inept, useless "liberal" pundits to help bring them down.

It's no wonder that folks who don't research the facts for themselves believe what they were spoonfed by the media.

[karynnj]

73. Are you trying to win a RW award for

putting as many RW lies against Kerry into as few words as possible. I honestly think you hate Kerry more than Bush, which says little about you.

[elehhhhna]

118. hate to say so but i agree.

[ProSense]

23. So he ran for president and got 59 million votes without a vision?

The spin is making me dizzy.

I love the 10-point plan cause Democrats didn't have a plan according to the MSM.

Kerry had many fine moments. I saw some of them on the trail and in the debates. But as many have said, Kerry is a politician who has more policies than ideas. Ask what he believes in and the answer is a 10-point plan. He ran a cautious campaign against a reckless commander-in-chief. And while caution is not a moral failing, Kerry's gut seems to have a surgical bypass through his cranium.

This time he'd get it right? What the Democrats need this time out is not a messenger honed to squeak on the margin of undecideds, but a vision of what's gone wrong in the country and how to right it. As Michael Tomasky writes in The American Prospect, they need a liberal message of the common good that trumps the conservative message - a view that we are in this globalized, post-industrial, post-9/11 world together and must "pull together, make some sacrifices, and, just sometimes, look beyond our own interests to solve our problems and create the future."

John Kerry is a good, honorable, thoughtful man. And a lousy presidential candidate. He couldn't do "ideas" the first time. He wouldn't do them the second time. It's just not in him.

Here ya go:

Real Security in the Post 9/11 World
http://www.kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=249580


John Kerry: “Security in a Dangerous World”
John Kerry is in Northern Ireland today to deliver a keynote lecture at the University of Ulster. Kerry’s speech is part of the Tip O’Neill series of peace lectures at the University.
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2133


John Kerry Fights for “KidsFirst” Health Care Plan
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2484


The Senate should pass this bill for comprehensive campaign finance reform
Edited on Wed Feb-08-06 02:22 PM by ProSense
In 1997, Senator Kerry introduced the following bill that he wrote along with Senator Wellstone (it was reintroduced on a couple of other occasions, with various sponsors):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2445744&mesg_id=2445744




Dispelling Myths
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1015710&mesg_id=1015710

Scoop Top 30 Daily Ratings - 26 April 2006

Thursday, 27 April 2006, 9:52 am
Article: Scoop Daily Ratings
TO CHANGE MY SCOOP OPTIONS OR UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS LIST
http://www.scoop.co.nz/myscoop/signin.html
IF YOU HAVE LOST YOUR PASSWORD
http://www.scoop.co.nz/myscoop/newpass.html
Yesterday's top 30 rating items on Scoop were...

1: Bush Impeachment Resolution Introduced In Illinois


Representative Karen A. Yarbrough, a Democratic member of the Illinois State Assembly, introduced a resolution calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00294.htm

2: Kamala Sarup: World Refugees Day


In 2000 the General Assembly of the United Nations passed a resolution that proclaimed June 20th to be World Refugee Day. Some time ago the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees said the following: "Every day we can observe incredible courage and strength of ...
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00238.htm

3: Senator John Kerry: The Right to Dissent


Thirty-five years ago today, I testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, and called for an end to the war I had returned from fighting not long before.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0604/S00399.htm

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00328.htm

http://www.johnkerry.com/action/deadline/?sc=e.20060418

[confludemocrat]

25. Yes. that would be correct

[ProSense]

27. Thanks for your opinion!

And thanks for the opinions of the morons who voted for Bush!

[eallen]

61. Yep. Purely for not being Bush. That should have been enough to win.

A wet sock should have won against Bush in 2004.

:hippie:

[ProSense]

79. Absolutely incorrect!

When this study Few American Voters Ever Changed Their Minds, showed that nearly 30% of the public (the same number cited by the Carter-Baker Commission) were not confident in the election, including 10% who believed something went wrong, it was a place to start to build public awareness. It would have taken years, but there was tremendous stonewalling on the issue.

From the survey:

Respondents were asked to rate the honesty of the campaigns on a scale of zero to ten. The average for the Bush campaign was 6.8 and for the Kerry campaign it was 7.2. Bush voters gave his campaign less credit for honesty than Kerry voters gave his. Bush voters rated their campaign at an average of 8.4, while Kerry supporters rated his at 9.1. There was less difference in how they rated the opposition. Bush voters gave Kerry’s campaign a 5.4 average; Kerry’s gave the Bush campaign a 5.2.

There was little evidence of post-election reconciliation in the survey, which was conducted from November 4 through December 28. Kerry voters were asked whether they agreed with the statement: “Even though I voted for John Kerry, George Bush will probably be a good president in his second term.”

Only 2 percent strongly agreed and 13 percent somewhat agreed. Fifteen percent somewhat disagreed and 67 percent strongly disagreed. This was a substantially more negative result than Annenberg found from November 3 through 11. At that time, 5 percent of Kerry voters strongly agreed and 25 percent somewhat agreed. Thirteen percent somewhat disagreed and 53 percent strongly disagreed.

Nor were Kerry voters much more reconciled to the idea that their votes had been counted properly. In this survey, 53 percent of Kerry voters said they were “very confident” their votes had been accurately counted, about the same as the 53 percent who said that in the November 3-11 polling. Among Bush voters, 86 percent said they were “very confident” their votes had been counted accurately, up from 62 percent just after the election. For all voters, the figure was 70 percent

The margin of sampling error for all respondents was plus or minus one percentage point. For either Bush or Kerry voters, it was plus or minus two percentage points.

The survey also blows ABB out of the water:

Ever thought would vote for other candidate:

Bush voters 16%
Never: 84%

Kerry Voters 15%
Never: 85%

All voters 15%
Never: 84%

The majority of Kerry voters never entertained the thought of voting for Bush.

[calmblueocean]

146. Thanks for injecting some sanity here!

You'd think half the people here never saw the debates. Remember those debates? The ones where Kerry mopped the f**king floor with Bush? Where Bush mumbled about moo-laws and the internets, where he coined the immortal phrases, "You forgot Poland!" and "Got any wood?"

Kerry was awesome in those debates. A man to be proud of. He put everything he had on the line to save the country.

And he had great ideas. His plan to start fixing the health care system through government reinsurance of the most expensive cases was a great start that would've actually ended up making health insurance affordable for millions more people. Kerry is an intelligent, compassionate human being who has spent his life working for the public good.

But I guess it's not fashionable to support a candidate like that anymore. People like Ellen Goodman are too caught up supporting their imaginary fantasy candidates who descend from the clouds in chariots tossing premarked Democratic ballots to a cheering nation. Her crack that "He's not the only one who cannot believe he actually said of Iraq War funding, 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it,'" is exactly the kind of fantasy crap that irks me. If Democrats didn't internalize right wing spin and use it to attack their own candidates, we might actually get somewhere. Kerry voted for the $87 bil to come out of Bush's tax cuts. The Republicans who voted it down voted *against* the $87 bil before they voted for it. Shouldn't they be the ones who are ashamed? Shouldn't we be the ones who shamed them?

Shame on Ellen Goodman for being the kind of superficial, fair-weather Democrat that keeps us focused on beating up our best men and women instead of beating our opponent's worst.

[confludemocrat]

24. She equates a JK 08 candidacy to an irritating allergic reaction build up

sound about right, both JFK 08 and a bad allergy season are going to leave your head aching, eyes watering and wanting to take some drugs to get you through the irritation

[RedEarth]

26. Iagree......

[MH1]

28. "WE"????? Ellen Goodman presumes to speak for me???

She titles her column, "Dear John: We won't take you back".

BULLSHIT, just BULLSHIT.

She says: "In the primaries, Kerry was Everydemocrat's second choice."

BULLSHIT, just BULLSHIT.

I'm sick and feckin' tired of these FREAKIN' pundits presuming they know what the FUCK they are talking about.

Kerry was my FIRST CHOICE ALL THE WAY - and I viewed the primaries as MOST AVERAGE AMERICANS DID - I watched about thirty percent of the debates and half my motivation was to laugh at Al Sharpton's jokes. (Don't flame me Al fans - ya gotta admit he lightened things up.)

Goodman just proved herself another clueless bloviating windbag pundit in my book.

[poverlay]

29. I very much like and support John Kerry... However, he doesn't

stand a snowball's chance in hell of beating John McCain. Wes Clark or even Mrs. Clinton would have a better shot. I'd prefer Al Gore if it were up to me...

Just putting in my 2 cents.

[karynnj]

80. Don't be so sure about that

Kerry and McCain have a history - and Kerry looks better in it than McCain. McCain's book contains an outstanding description of the POW/MIA committee - which reads as positively about Kerry as anything written in the JohnKerry group here. In addition to all the skills Kerry showed, he had the compassion to help McCain deal with the people attacking him - which McCain, of course repaid at the RNC by telling people to get rid of the disgraceful purple bandaids while he spoke. NOT

[LiberalEsto]

30. I see no reason he shouldn't run in open primaries

but he isn't OWED the nomination. He will have to earn it.

If anybody is OWED, it would be Gore, but even so I think he should compete in an open field of candidates,

[karynnj]

91. Totally agree - the question is who is the best candidate

in 2008. The primaries decide.

In Goodman's case, I would respect her more if she was saying don't run because you will not win and you will lose your Senate seat. There is no reason he should not run because Goodman fears he could win the nomination again.

[itzamirakul]

35. Thank God Goodman spoke out!

NO HILLARY!

NO GORE!

NO KERRY!

NO FEINGOLD!

JOHN EDWARDS SEEMS LIKE A POSSIBILITY...

OTHERWISE .....

[MH1]

38. NO DEMOCRATS!!!

:sarcasm:

But that's you're saying, isn't it?


(or did you forget the dripping red tag...it's hard to tell around here sometimes)

[itzamirakul]

112. I take it that with the "dripping red" comment that you are labeling me as

being other than a loyal democrat. I have nothing to prove to you but I will say that in a country the size of America with all of the loyal, intelligent democrats that we have, we certainly do not have to RE-RUN two proven losers, Kerry and Gore (both of whom I supported to the nth degree while they ran and for whom I voted.)

I do not like the way Hillary cozies up to the Republicans and for that matter I don't like the way Bill kisses Bush Sr's ass. But while he was in office, I supported him the the n'th degree. I thought they both were great. I no longer think so and Hillary is my Senator. I did not realize that as a young woman she was a Goldwater Girl, so it is easy to see how she can Liebermanize herself now.

Feingold shows me nothing.

We should be searching and searching for several good potential candidates instead of pushing these also-rans.

On edit:
Oh, btw, I take it that you do not consider John Edwards to be a Democrat?



Why some of you want to re-run losers proves to me that it is YOU who have the dripping red tag and want to lead our party into yet another diastrous loss at the polls.

[LittleClarkie]

119. Why do you have warm fuzzies for Edwards. Just wondering

I like Gore, Kerry and Feingold.

[calmblueocean]

147. Why are Kerry and Gore both losers, but Edwards isn't?

Edwards wasn't even poised to retake his own state, which is one of the reasons he only ran for veep and not for re-election.

And Gore was no loser. He won the second highest office in the country twice, won 3 elections to the House of Representatives and 2 elections as Senator. And he won the 2000 election. He had more popular votes AND, when the final count was made of all Florida votes in all counties, Gore won under every standard of counting (i.e. pregnant chads, hanging chads, etc.). Gore was locked out by corrupt Florida election officials and Supreme Court justices. It's that simple.

I doubt Gore will run again, but we'd be lucky to have him. The country needs someone as smart and experienced as Gore as president.

[TayTay]

69. Goodman is wrong now and was wrong in '04

when she dismissed Kerry.

With a track record like that .....

[karynnj]

93. All 5 of them are entitled to win

In my case, I see Edwards as my 5th choice out of 5 here, but would vote for any in the GE.

[ProSense]

40. Is Goodman afraid he'll win the primaries in a democratic nation?

I'm begging Kerry to run. American democracy needs to be saved from demagogues.

[MH1]

54. and from idiotic pundits. n/t

[wisteria]

67. She sounds like she has a case of hysteria, and is irrational.

Why is she so worried about Kerry running in the primaries- maybe it has something to do with his ability to win. Who does she support I wonder. Why is she so concerned about this now!

[karynnj]

88. Why else would she devote an entire column to it?

Seems Kerry is making headway - why does she think he should remove himself? If another candidate is better than he/she will win, if not Kerry will. Why tell him not to run.

I want Kerry to run too. As far as ideas go, Kerry is the ONLY one of the current group who really has a coherent vision of foreign policy (either his CFR speech or his Ireland speech), and the domestic issues - his view of the interplay between having American scientists invent alternative fuels and energy saving technologies, creating jobs, and helping the environment is great. With his innovative Small Business programs and the fact that he alone of the Democrats is behind the line item veto - even in Republican hands - and it's his idea they are using to make it legal this time, he appeals to some moderate Republicans few Democrats can.

[Kolesar]

46. Ellen's right

I get sleepy just thinking about another Kerry run.

[TayTay]

76. Too bad.

He has supporters, money and the probably inclination to run.

How do you propose to stop him? How would you propose to stop Gore or Edwards or Clinton or Clark or anyone else who wants to run?

[paulk]

105. by posting on anonymous internet message boards?

stop me, taytay

just try and stop me....

[Stevepol]

47. Kerry was a great candidate, but a very poor winner.

Why do people keep forgetting that Kerry won the election by at least 5 million votes. He won OH and probably FL. He won NM and many other states that the voting machines stole for Bush.

Until we realize the truth about the election we can't get anything right at all.

The only thing I fault Kerry for is not informing himself about the almost certain voting machine fraud to come and preparing for lawsuits and demands for recounts. His concession speech so soon without even a whimper of a fight disqualifies him for me, but that's the only thing that disqualifies him.

Otherwise, he's a great candidate and conducted a great campaign.

[Catrina]

106. That's the problem with him. He didn't inform himself about the war vote

either, or more prescisely, he trusted a man of no honor, and who knows better than Kerry what the Bush family history is? We had to learn it, fast, and did. I never supported him in the primaries, mainly because of that vote and because, like Bush, when he was asked about his membership in Skull & Bones (Tim Russert) he refused to answer.

The trouble I had with S&B was what I read about 'brothers' always helping 'brothers' throughout their lifetime. Personally either this is a ridiculous college fraternity with the usual childish rituals, or something more sinister. If it is the former, then anyone running for public office needs to shed those childish 'loyalties' and answer openly, when questioned about them.

We are always being asked to 'understand what Kerry meant'. I go by results. He walked away from holding up the acceptance of Bush as president. Any questioning of Bush would have drawn attention and forced the media to pay attention, to the very real problem of election fraud and the machines and their owners.

The media shut down all discussion of this most important issue after Kerry walked away. Even if it meant he could not prove it right away, he gave up a golden opportunity to focus attention on the problem. I find it very difficult to forget that. We had to be satisfied that Keith Olbermann mentioned it once a while.

Now you say he didn't know enough about it? I thought he had 10,000 lawyers ready to oversee the counting of every vote? He surely saw what happened in 2000! No, he gave up the fight to bring this issue to national attention. And I don't understand why. Only he could have gotten the media attention that this issue so clearly cries out for, and has never received. It is a forbidden topic.

[fooj]

49. Re-elect Al Gore.

It's time that he takes his rightful place as the leader of our country...

[leftchick]

50. Excellent!

And I agree totally!

:thumbsup:

[MH1]

74. You agree with lies and right wing talking points? Okay, got it. nt

[leftchick]

75. point out a lie!

I didn't see any. All FACTS!

[MH1]

89. Easy. "every dems second choice". nt

[karynnj]

94. He was my first choice

[WI_DEM]

51. I think we need a new candidate in '08

Rarely does it work renominating the same candidate twice in a row (Stevenson 52, 56) Bryan ('96, 00). But in the end Democratic primary voters will decide it--and if he wants to run, nobody can stop him from trying--and if he wins he will have won fair and square and I will support him.

[blm]

82. There is no formula anymore - GOP controls the media and voting machines

to the extent they never had prior to 92, and NO Democrat can win who doesn't work with the DNC to deal with that and expose it first.

[karynnj]

95. There are too few elections

to make those kinds of analyses.

[LittleClarkie]

128. I've never understood what was magical about "new"

Must be an American thing. We like our stuff to be all shiny.

[wisteria]

172. You are comparing apples and oranges here. One man ,running

twice against the same President is not the same as Kerry. Stevenson didn't even come close the first time.

We need a knowledgeable candidate who people feel comfortable with and can trust to get the job done correctly the first time. Senator Kerry fits this description perfectly.

[Taverner]

52. Edwards in 2008!!!!

Honestly, he'd bring integrity back to the WH

[wisteria]

53. Well, she is full of sh*t. No other way to put it. Someone please

provide a link to respond to her blathering inaccuracies and obvious bias towards Kerry.Thank goodness no one pays her any attention. Wow, who is she working for that she has her fangs out this early ready to draw blood.
Hey Ellen, are you angry because Senator Kerry still has much support and many wish he would run again? Maybe more support than your choice? Is your choice angry because he gave the speech of a lifetime on Saturday past and he reached the public with it?

I suppose she is entitled to her opinion even though it is entirely inaccurate and wrong. I think she just exposed herself in all her silliness.

[MH1]

65. Excellent post.

Her column is so full of bullshit, if this is the way she normally writes, why would anyone ever pay her any attention?

[karynnj]

97. It is curious that this is her response to Kerry's speech

As Wisteria said, Kerry's speech was the speech of a lifetime. As to no ideas, this speech was filled with history and defended the basic American ideals. If this speech were from any other Democrat, her column would have been like Bob Herbert's excellent column - that included at least 5 excerpts from the speech - letting the speech speak for itself.

The speech was about the American value of dissent and about the Iraq war. Kerry as a Senator has a duty to speak about these issues. His history makes him an exceptional person to take up this charge and there is no one in the Democratic party who could have made this case with greater eloquence.

The timing of this column is telling - as it is a pretty strange response to Kerry's speech. Maybe it made her remember how good he can be and that he could win the nomination rather than her favorite. (Hillary?)

[bigtree]

55. every Democrat's second choice?

She doesn't like New Hampshire because they didn't go for her darling, Dr. Dean. I remember she did a sweetheart piece on his wife, thinking, I guess, that she was introducing us to the next first lady.

That's where the disconnect is for the majority of folks who long for a more liberal candidate and feel that something in the system, some party manipulation, knocked Dean off stride in New Hampshire. My view is that the VOTERS decided then, and the voters decided later, that they wanted John Kerry for THEIR nominee. You can talk about some momentum that comes out of Iowa and New Hampshire. There's no question that wins there give a candidate a leg up. But it was Goodman's darling, Dr. Dean, who had the Big Mo from the start. John Kerry took that momentum away with his campaign. The voters liked him.

If John Kerry is available and ready to campaign for their votes, and the majority of Democrats want him as their nominee, it will be a curious argument that he's squeaking the undecideds. How would a liberal message of the common good that trumps the conservative message address those undecided votes? Not with some with us or against us attitude.

Is she afraid that he would get the nomination? If he did, wouldn't that represent the will of the majority of our party? What's wrong with that, and where is this 'second choice'?

[Mass]

62. Pundits like Goodman do not care what the voters think. They think

they are so superior to us poor mortals.

[ginnyinWI]

68. That's about the size of it, Mass.

They don't trust people; don't believe in democracy. What we need are less people telling us what to think and more access to knowing who the candidates really are without all the spin. That's where the media has failed us. The people don't know who they're voting for at all--they have to choose between two manufactured images that in the last election were the opposites of who the candidates were!

[MH1]

66. That right there exposes her total cluelessness. nt

[blm]

72. Especially odd since Kerry's record was decidely LEFT of Dean's record

on many issues. How much research did Goodman do in her job as a journalist? The MEDIA did a huge disservice with their shoddy and inaccurate reporting on most of the candidates.

[bigtree]

81. that always occurs to me

Dr. Dean seemed to borrow the philosophy of the centrists in the DLC as he governed Vermont, more so than John Kerry seemed to lend to his legislation. There were very few legislative inituitives that Sen. Kerry sponsored or initiated that weren't considered the among the finest representations of progressive thought and action, second only to Ted Kennedy, I believe.

I always saw Dr. Dean as a centrist, notwithstanding the aspirations of the large amount of voters who invested their belief and efforts in his campaign.

[blm]

83. I do credit his supporters moving him left though, which allowed me to

support Dean as DNC Chairman.

[bigtree]

85. he represented/represents their concerns well

he's a kick ass chairman!

[Bryan]

133. Beautifully put. This piece is stunningly false.

Thanks for pointing out her cheerleading for Gov. Dean. It explains why Goodman is taking a different version of the same line that more fervent anti-Hillary people take: she shouldn't run, because she'll wrap up all the money and steamroll the primaries.

"Stop Him Before He Kills (the Democrats' Chances) Again."? Because Kerry's just going to skate to the nomination in '08? I doubt even Senator Kerry puts as much stock in his ability to bring Democrats over to his side as Goodman does. This attitude is less reflective of a dislike for one candidate than a belief that Democratic voters are a pack of sheep, and it would be far more honest of her to write an op/ed about that little theory.

[wisteria]

57. You and her can believe what ever makes you happy, but face it,

Senator Kerry is and will remain a viable candidate for the presidency-if he chooses to run. I for one would like to say this,

RUN SENATOR KERRY RUN!!!!! RUN IN 2008 FOR PRESIDENT SENATOR KERRY!!!

I WILL NOW GO AND SEND ANOTHER CONTRIBUTION TO THE SENATOR FOR ALL HIS HARD WORK ON BEHALF OF ALL DEMOCRATS.

[calmblueocean]

148. Woohoo! I love it.

Kerry's got a lot of people in his camp!

[Mass]

59. If he is such a bad candidate, why does she care if he runs? He will

lose.

[jenndar]

70. Sorry, but she needs to think beyond campaigns

for me to respect her logic at all.

If another Kerry campaing means another shot at a Kerry presidency, then I say bring it on. History doesn't end on Election Day 2008.

[IndyOp]

77. Kerry WON. The election was stolen -

If she wants to start her article with that and continue on to argue Kerry should not run, then I'll read -- otherwise, she is setting up a straw man (Kerry-who-didn't-win) and knocking him down.

:(

[LSK]

86. bingo!!!

Ohio was stolen in many small different ways that added up to a Bush win that is not legit.

[WildEyedLiberal]

84. Ellen: Please fuck off

Thank you.

This is a democracy. Anyone who wants to run for president can do so without your permission. The voters will decide who is worthy of being our nominee - not you, Ellen. Because this is a democracy, you know.

So please, Ellen, fuck off. Thank you.

[Adelante]

90. Ouch

Not a Goodman fan, but ouch, anyways. Not that she gets to decide who runs or doesn't run. It's an opinion, I guess.

[godhatesrepublicans]

98. Kerry ran a lousy campaign, made stupid mistakes.

He blew his one and I say only shot. If he wasn't going to run and run hard, he should have stayed out of the primary. The only reason he won is he seemed like a "safe choice" to the party machine. I won't go over why I ran a lousy campaign, Al Fran ken did a great job explaining it in THE TRUTH.

I support Dean, Kucinich or Clarke. I actually want to vote for Reverend Sharpton in the 2008 primary, but I'm not sure he's interested this go-around.

[stepnw1f]

100. Yes... More Infighting

I hope he runs... in fact I hope more people run this time. It's healthy, but this pre-emptive smearing is fucking stupid. I just don't get it. Oh well....

[WildEyedLiberal]

101. You and me both

I want to know the 16 people who thought this divisive bullshit deserved the "greatest page."

For the record, if you replaced the name "John Kerry" with "Wes Clark" or "Russ Feingold" or "Al Gore" or "Mark Warner" or "John Edwards" - it would still be divisive bullshit, and I would still think it was a ludicrious, inane article.

[stepnw1f]

108. Exactly...

And it never stops. It's like people actually enjoy pissing and moaning about their own party... or is it their own party? Being critical of politicians is one thing but nominating smear of a possible Democratic candidate who by the way, actually won the elction, is counter-productive.

And I actually voted for Kucinich in the Primaries, but I really like Kerry and know he'll make a damn better President than our current "parasite n' thief".

[dailykoff]

104. When did Ellen start hitting the bottle

and when did they start putting Kool-Aid in bottles?

[robinlynne]

111. I agree and I wrote Kerry a letter saying so 3 wks ago.

I gently told him that we all gave our souls to his campaign, that he did not have the right to step down as he did, and that we will NOT go to the streets for him again.

[Der Blaue Engel]

153. Why does everyone keep trying to speak for the rest of the Democrats?

You might not "go to the streets" but I sure as hell will, for whoever the nominee is. He didn't have the right to concede when the official tally said he lost? That's an interesting perspective.

[robinlynne]

167. The "official tally' was fraudulent.

[Der Blaue Engel]

170. Of course it was

And the proof of that is where? We know in our hearts this is true, but they did a damn good job of making the evidence disappear. In my view, he didn't have any choice but to concede. It still broke my heart, but I didn't blame him. I put the blame where it belongs: ON THE THIEVES.

[wisteria]

173. Who is "we"? please speak for yourself!!! n/t

[savemefromdumbya]

113. Kerry (well actually Gore) should be President already

surely someone can restore their rightful throne?

[wiley]

114. Neither Kerry nor Edwards

[mmonk]

120. I support John Kerry's right to run.

I like what has come from him lately. He's been more active than alot of the potential candidates in finally addressing this war and it's deceptions. He's also doing other things worthy of note concerning the shape of this country.

[politicasista]

124. Who is she, his mother?

Just another so-called left pundit playing into the repukes hands by talking about 2008 instead of 2006. You would think she and others here would follow Kerry's example by focusing on the midterm elections, but I guess she is too busy thinking about the past and dreaming of a PERFECT candidate instead of the issues that matter to Americans right now.


We will never learn.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

125. He won't get my vote again even if he runs.

I still say he's a ringer.

He should never have made that concession call to *bush.

[wildflowergardener]

126. I hope he runs

I hope Kerry runs.

I'll bet lots of Bush voters are now kicking themselves that they didn't vote for Kerry.

He's still my favorite choice among any of the people talking about running. Just because he runs doesn't mean he's going to necessarily win in the primaries. Who is she to say who I get to vote for in the primaries if he still wants to run?

Anyway everything that's been dug up about him is pretty much out there now. He can learn from mistakes he made in the last election and not make them again.

Meg

[jillan]

127. i confess I do watch Democracy Now - BUT Ellen Goodman is

more to the left than most
AND on Liberty News, which also broadcasts on Link tv,
had alot of complimentary words about Kerry.

When Kerry wins the nomination, and she supports him, do we get to call
her a flip-flopper?

[Crunchy Frog]

134. That's Amy Goodman on Democracy Now.

Ellen Goodman is a columnist for the Boston Globe.

[lillilbigone]

129. He was my first choice... and still is. nt

[DoveTurnedHawk]

130. You Get One Shot at the Big Dance

After that, you're done. Nothing personal about or specific to Kerry; I said the same thing about Gore, too.

DTH

[Clarkie1]

131. Kerry doesn't have a chance of being nominated again...no worries. n/t

[DanCa]

132. We can do far worse than Senator Kerry

If he runs again I will proudly vote for this man with my head held high.

[Martin Eden]

137. Ellen Goodman doesn't get it.

Kerry should run. Gore should run. Hillary should run. Every Democrat with aspirations for the Oval Office who has a chance of garnering significant support should run. Joe Leiberman should run. Dennis Kucinisch, Al Sharpton, Wes Clark, John Edwards, Howard Dean, fill-in-the-blank should run.

Let's have a real old-fashioned national debate and exchange of ideas in the Democratic Party. Let everything that needs to be said be said. Let's all agree, even if we disagree, to have a fair, civil, and vigorous battle of ideas in which the best leader with the best ideas will emerge to bring our country out of the darkness and into the light of a better future that the majority of Americans will see because we, as a party, have illuminated it.

[ruggerson]

138. I've always loved Ellen Goodman

and this only reinforces that feeling. :)

[MH1]

161. You love a liar and smear merchant? Good on ya. nt

[zulchzulu]

139. See you out in the streets, Ellen

You can back whoever you want. I'll back Kerry. We'll see who wins...thanks for playing.

[FrenchieCat]

142. It's not like this article is going to discourage John Kerry

From running again......if that's what he'll want to do....and I'm sure, that's what he'll want to do.

So this is much to do about nothin'! :shrug:

[MH1]

160. What it does

is reinforce smears against a likely Dem candidate....and a current Dem leader...while achieving nothing for her preferred candidate.

So she can call herself what she wants, but she hurts the Democratic Party and liberal causes by doing this crap. If she prefers someone else she should build that person up, not tear someone else down with lies and smears.

And oh btw, for all the Kerry-bashers cheering her on, be forewarned: rumor has it, Ellen's preferred candidate is Hillary.

[wildflowergardener]

143. Have others re-run and won?

I can not remember for sure, but I thought I remember hearing or reading that other candidates had one after being nominated and losing at least once, and went on to win. Can anyone tell me if this is true - and who did?

Editing: I found a list - The ones I find are Nixon, Andrew Jackson, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, William Henry Harrison - who were major candidates and lost at least once before they won.

Just in case anyone is interested in this bit of trivia.

Meg

[jpgray]

144. I will always like Kerry, and while he wasn't an amazing candidate

I thought overall he acquitted himself personally quite well, though his camp was strategically inept. But then, the camps of his opponents were even more abysmally inept, with the possible exception of Edwards's and some of Dean's.

[MH1]

162. Evidently *all* of the others were more inept in the primaries. nt

[iconoclastNYC]

145. He can run. He won't win the nomination.

But I think its arrogant and undemocratic for anyone to urge anyone not to run in the primary.

[Der Blaue Engel]

152. How do you type a "raspberry"?

:eyes:

[madfloridian]

155. I stayed out of this, until Dean got blamed for Goodman's post.

How very hypocritical of you guys that did that. How in the world could you do that?

Goodman did her share of criticism of all the candidates.

The other day I said that this happened a lot, that Kerry's war vote was blamed on Dean. That the fact that Dean was centrist and we knew it and supported him anyway...was somehow hurting Kerry.

This is stunning to me how you guys do this. You blame Dean for an article by Ellen Goodman that is ugly to Kerry.

Now run that by me one more time?

[madfloridian]

156. And here is just one of several statements doing this.

And go ahead and flame...I stayed out of this thing until now. I would never say some of the things about Kerry that are said in this thread. I supported him and liked him...but this is out of control. Goodman had her opinions on everyone...not always good.

Posted above....and no, she was no Dean cheerleader. Get real.

"Thanks for pointing out her cheerleading for Gov. Dean. It explains why Goodman is taking a different version of the same line that more fervent anti-Hillary people take: she shouldn't run, because she'll wrap up all the money and steamroll the primaries."

[grytpype]

157. Kerry was an unexpectedly weak candidate.

He should have crushed Bush but he was getting bad advice or something and wouldn't go on the offensive, while Bush swiftboated him to death.

No recycled losers, please. We have a lot of great contenders, like Edwards and Clark.

[bigtree]

171. you mean President Clark?

and President Edwards?

[sendero]

163. Needless to say..

... she's only saying what I've been saying here for a year, only better. Kerry just doesn't have the stuff and he can make 1,000 speeches he will never inspire anyone to switch to the Democratic party.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

166. Wow...somebody should tell Richard Nixon that you only get one shot

and that if you appear weak in any way, that America will never put you in the White House in spite of your coming within inches of it in the election prior.

I voted for Kerry and would gladly vote for him again. Why? All in all, I believe he is best qualified.

[James Madison]

168. Perhaps she doesn't want to see "The Return of the Swift Boaters."

[wisteria]

174. They have been neutered and will be ineffective this time out. n/t

[realFedUp]

176. Almost nothing about the occupation in Iraq would have changed

if Kerry was now occupying the oval office, I
believe.